IMO, chess is becoming more and more like checkers. probably going to die out within the next decade.

Thanks for sharing!

If chess dies, we will play Chess 960.

QFT

You solve the puzzle, just shake it up and play again.

Maybe he is talking about ICC rating?
Ive been playing chess for more than 20years now and Ive never heard of anyone going from 1400 to 2100 in only one year.
Also it a hell lot of games to be played in one year in order to collect those 700rating points even if a playing strength of 2100 really is reached.
None of the talented juniors in my country that later developed into GM:s climbed that fast.

if he is a provisional, its pretty much a waste of time to play in tournaments.

if he wants to win the bet, he needs to study the next 11months, play a few 2000+ players and take his chances

I found this guy from chesspub. He studied about 4 hours a day and had a full time job. He was rated 1000 in the beginning.


"I gained 900 rating points in one year.

How?

I played 200 otb games and another 130 correspondence games. I deeply analyzed each one after the fact probing for my weaknesses. I studied openings, tactics and endgames throughout. Openings I studied strictly through correspondence."

I was talking about adults, not juniors. Aged 20-40, to be precise. They can learn much faster than kids.

I did find one. Alex Lenderman went from 1400 to 2100 in a year (Feb-Feb but don't remember the year). But I looked through all the top young US chess players to find this.

I think this is the problem many of us are having with your argument. You keep saying this as though it is established or a good basis for your argument. In fact, it directly opposes years of educational psychology research. Can you please support your above statement in some way before continuing to use it as the a basis for your argument? Maybe a couple studies where this was the conclusion?

Very impressive indeed. http://main.uschess.org/component/op...er/Itemid,181/

He was probably a bit underrated at 1111 in feb 2001 though.

1100 to 1900 in feb to feb and from 1400 to 2100 in apr to apr

Interesting to note that USCF calculates ratings for g/30, g/45 and g/60 which we never do here in Europe and probably not in eastern europe either.
Its obviously possible to get a lot more rated games this way.

Im not so sure about that. From what Ive seen, its rather the opposite.
The number of grandmaster who learnt to play after age 20 are minuscule if there even are any

I haven't heard of any studies on chess improvement. Children do learn faster many things, for example languages, but I don't think it can be compared to chess, since learning chess requires other skills.

How many adults can (or even want to) spend 6+ hours a day studying, pumping out countless $ for coaches, and can arbitrarily travel and spend days at a time playing tournaments, all for a board game?

There are many reasons for that. Adults have much less free time for chess training. Also, a 10-year old rated 2200 is cosidered a genius and often gets financial aid from his club, private sponsor or government and invitations to strong tournaments. A 30-year old with the same rating and the same amount of hours spent on learning chess, is considered just an average player and gets nothing.

There is an age limit when you have to learn to speak or you will never learn it properly. If I remember correctly language and chess thinking happens in the same brain area.

Kind of funny to not only state such a thing as fact, but then make a further derivation from it when said hypothesis is still one of the hottest debated topics in linguistics.

Here's what you're looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis

I personally now about many players who suddenly spent one or more years in their adult life studying chess fulltime when they got unemployed or got free time for some other reason. They usually improved, but just a little bit and nothing like Mr lenderman above.
You migth make an argument that people who get unemployed is not the sharpest brains in the world, but still.

Dont misunderstand me, improvement is possible regardless of age, but Im not sure about these super big leaps.
One guy I know personally was a strong IM, about 2450 ELO when he immigrated to my country from eastern Europe 1993-1994 something when he was like 27-28years old. Either he was unemployed or got some kind of work in his chess club, but he studied chess fulltime the following years and developed into a strong 2600GM before year 2000.

Btw, this guy is very talented in language as well.
One can barely hear the accent in his new language at all

Fact fact fact. Do you have a fact?

Cunningham should hire Roman Dzindzichashvili.

Ok, I just played in the Reno tournament C section and won two, lost 3, and got a free bye point. I'd appreciate any comments.

First I lost the following two rook endgames cuz I just didn't know what to do, although I think I learned a lot going over them afterword. I'm beginning to think endgame study should be a very close second to tactical study.






(I'm black and to move in both).

Then I lost the following game where I have a few ideas of where I went wrong but I'm not sure. Well, I'm sure I played the endgame like crap yet again but I got into a bad one.

[Event "Reno"]
[Site "Reno"]
[Date "2010.04.04"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Justin Garvin"]
[Black "Allen"]
[ECO "B23"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.f4 Bg7 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bc4 e6 6.f5 Nge7 7.fxe6
fxe6

Maybe dxe6 is less risky since he's obviously wants to play kingside but there are good ideas each way.

8.O-O O-O 9.d3 d5 10.exd5 exd5 11.Bb3 Nd4?! (develop my bishop?) 12.Nxd4 Bxd4+ 13.Kh1 Rxf1+ 14.Qxf1 Be6 15.Bg5 Bxc3

I'm pretty sure this sucked. I was nervous about 15...Qd7 or Qd6 16.Nb5 or Ba4 respectively followed by Re1 but I was probably seeing ghosts. I mean, I didn't know for sure if those lines were bad but I was pretty sure losing my bishop and allowing Qf6 was bad.

16.bxc3 Qd7 17.Qf6 Nf5 18.Re1 Re8 19.g4 Nd6

I spent some time on 19...c4 20.gxf5 ... Bxf5 and liked the first couple lines I tried but then found some that were too complex and I might just lose a piece.

20.Rxe6 Qxe6 21.Qxe6+ Rxe6 22.Bxd5 Kf7 23.Kg2 Nb5 24.c4 Nc3 25.Bxe6+ Kxe6 26.a3 Kd7

Maybe I'm going in the wrong direction?

27.Kf3 Kc6 28.Bf6 Nb1 29.Bb2 Kb6

For a second I thought I might actually win but I overlooked 38.c3+

30.Kf4 Ka5 31.Kg5 Ka4 32.Kh6 Nxa3 33.Bxa3 Kxa3 34.Kxh7 g5 35.Kg6 a5 36.Kxg5 a4 37.h4 Kb4 38.c3+ Ka5 39.h5 a3 40.h6 a2 41.h7 a1=Q 42.h8=Q

Now I guess just give some spite checks then die?

Qc1+ 43.Kg6 Ka4 44.Qa8+ Kb3 45.Qxb7+ Kxc3 46.Qb6 Qe3 47.Qa5+ Kb2 48.Qd8 Qe6+ 49.Qf6+

Oops, overlooked that long diagonal. Was hoping to get in some more spite checks.

1-0

(Is there a thread for these kinds of posts or is this one ok because it's all about me?)

Both moves are playable. Yes, Bg4 is clearly better. Actually, Qd6 also allows an exchange of your bishop, so it's not a good move. Qd7 looks very solid and if Ba4 then Nc6 and black should be fine. c4 is a very interesting move, which probably leads to a draw by perpetual check. I don't see how can white win a piece.
Obviously, Nd6 loses immediately, so you should have played c4 even if you weren't sure of some variations.

1st rook ending - black's king is very active so white can't be better in this position. I think only black has some chances for a win. Simple d3 should be fine.

2nd rook ending - should be a draw after Rxb2. I don't see how can black lose this position. Rxb2 a4 Ra2 Rxe7 Kf8 (not allowing e6) Rxa7 Rxa4 e6 fxe6 Rxh7 and with his king cut off black can't win.

1st rook endgame. I do not know how to evaluate this. 1...d3 then maybe 2.Rc3 kd4 3.Rc4 Ke3 4.Ke1 Re5 5.Rh6 One try is to play 1...Re5 first 2.g6 d3 3.Rcf2 Rce8 and black seems good.
2nd rook endgame as d3d4 said.

In that game I think you missed a good opportunity to play d5! on move 8 (instead of castling). I think that would be better for you than the game. But the way you played it is also fine if you play Bg4 instead of Nd4 as you noted.

Allen,

My USCF rating peaked at 1822, approximately what the forums think you can achieve in a year of study. Towards the end of my tournament play, I made some serious endgame study. This is a thread I created on the 2+2 chess forum which I think will be helpful.

Learn to Love Endgames



This is a very good one-volume engame book which I think is perfect for players at our playing strength.

Just the Facts! Winning Endgame Knowledge in One Volume by GM Lev Alburt and GM Nikolay Korgius